Stanley Jordan, yay or nay?

[SedanDelivery2022]

Not sure how I got turned onto Stanley Jordan but I bought that Magic Touch album on cassette as a kid and wore it out. Just loved it. He has an album out with "Christian" guitarists Phil Keaggy and Muriel Anderson. Listened to a few seconds of it and it sounded very directionless and noodly. But it was a short few seconds; maybe it gets better.

[Greywolf]

I first saw Stanley busking in Palo Alto ,Ca. Then in concert . Truely a genius

[stringmann]

After grad school i headed to the SF bay area to teach. We lived with my brother in law in sunnyvale until we could get our own place. He was finishing his PhD at Stanford and teaching guitar classes at Terman middle school in Palo Alto. He told me about this student, Stanley Jordan---and i'll always remember that my bro in law said he never tried to change Stanley's inventive approach! And i believe Stanley was busking in Palo Alto even in middle school. I also remember that my bro in law was given tickets when Stanley was invited to perform on the johnny carson show...

[GuyBoden]

History

[Litterick]

'Anything that looks symmetrical is going to sound symmetrical."

Yes!

[GuyBoden]

'Anything that looks symmetrical is going to sound symmetrical."

Yes!

Anything that looks symmetrical?

Mandelbrot

[deacon Mark]

While he does play the guitar he does not really play it in the fashion that it was designed to be played. He is a tremendous musician and really should have just played the keyboards. As far as the guitar playing, he does and the sound, I cannot handle it for more than 4 measures. I tried to listen to him when he first came on scene just because he was getting press and recognition but then I realized, no thanks and have never listen to him again.

[nyc chaz]

While he does play the guitar he does not really play it in the fashion that it was designed to be played. He is a tremendous musician and really should have just played the keyboards. As far as the guitar playing, he does and the sound, I cannot handle it for more than 4 measures. I tried to listen to him when he first came on scene just because he was getting press and recognition but then I realized, no thanks and have never listen to him again.

Segovia thought playing electric guitar with a pick was an abomination.Different strokes/techniques for different folks,there is no such thing as a right way to play in my view.

[Litterick]

While he does play the guitar he does not really play it in the fashion that it was designed to be played. He is a tremendous musician and really should have just played the keyboards. As far as the guitar playing, he does and the sound, I cannot handle it for more than 4 measures. I tried to listen to him when he first came on scene just because he was getting press and recognition but then I realized, no thanks and have never listen to him again.

Stop it, Stanley; you're doing it wrong.

[deacon Mark]

Stop it, Stanley; you're doing it wrong.

I have no problem with him playing the guitar like he does. Nothing at all against the way he plays as right or wrong. What I don't care for is what I call the depth of sound he gets that to my ears is 2 dimensional in nature and not 3. So, while he might sound find and cut his way through a fantastic chord melody it does not grab like a Kenny Burrell or Barney Kessel. In fact, I can tell you at times Barney can get downright sloppy about is picking and single line playing. However, when he plays some of his solo chord melody stuff it just stands on its own to me. It is like hearing the Ellington Orchestra on a guitar with 6 strings.

These are only personal things my ear hears on Stanley Jordon, so I simply do not listen to him. It just does not grab me the same way. It is not even personal against Stanley Jordan a fine musician. We all like different things so I happen to point out my take to SJ. It makes sense in the fact that I am an acoustic archtop player.

[Woody Sound]

I wondered why he didn't go to the Chapman Stick. Maybe the timing of its introduction didn't line up with him, I don't quite remember their chronologies.

[GuyBoden]

I wondered why he didn't go to the Chapman Stick. Maybe the timing of its introduction didn't line up with him, I don't quite remember their chronologies.

IMHO, Chapman sticks have a similar tone, it has that very thin tapping tone.

[Bob_Ross]

IMHO, Chapman sticks have a similar tone, it's has that very thin tapping tone.

^^^This. My only criticism of Stanley Jordan is the exact same criticism I have of every single Chapman Stick player I've ever heard who uses the treble half of that instrument: The limited articulations and lack of any timbral "thickness" or resonance makes everything played sound character-less.

[GuyBoden]

^^^This. My only criticism of Stanley Jordan is the exact same criticism I have of every single Chapman Stick player I've ever heard who uses the treble half of that instrument: The limited articulations and lack of any timbral "thickness" or resonance makes everything played sound character-less.

I had a 10 string tapping instrument custom built, I found it a very difficult instrument, each hand has to play independently, but the hands must operate simultaneously doing two different things. So, two independent hands, more like a piano than a guitar.

Also, I couldn't get a sound that was acceptable, even with two PAF type pickups. Interesting, but too thin sounding for me.

[Simon1234]

Yay.

Originality, groove, and a love for the guitar. Surely the world's a better place for having people do that?

[wintermoon]

^^^This. My only criticism of Stanley Jordan is the exact same criticism I have of every single Chapman Stick player I've ever heard who uses the treble half of that instrument: The limited articulations and lack of any timbral "thickness" or resonance makes everything played sound character-less.

I think that's it for me. When I first heard him it was an ok that's interesting moment but it only lasted for that moment.
Nothing against and more power to him and his fans but there's just too many other people I'd rather listen to.

[omphalopsychos]

how about this guy

[deacon Mark]

how about this guy

From God,

Deacon, we are not sending you to hell but you have to listen to this in Purgatory……….purgatory is not heaven for sure.

[Mick-7]

how about this guy

If that's not in the upcoming Spinal Tap II sequel, it should be.... it might even be worse than this:

[Cunamara]

Stanley is an amazing musician who is not staying in the bebop lines, to be sure, but is more creative than most jazz guitarists. And he can play ferocious bebopish jazz, too. I've seen him twice in the past year and each show was fascinating.

The first was a solo gig, part of which included interacting with Ableton Live (I think) managed with two laptops and foot controls- his first show with that setup and hard to describe, but very intriguing. He was able to improvise a background to interact with and to improvise with on guitar. The second was a couple of weeks ago, a duo gig with Mimi Fox, which was stellar. Very different styles and yet they found a powerful common ground.

I attended a four hour seminar with Stanley the next day, which was fascinating. His focus was on learning rather than specifically about guitar technique, etc. Stanley has a degree in music theory from Princeton, a Master's in music therapy (and authored a very interesting article about neurolinguistic programming in music therapy). He's played with Benny Carter, Dizzy Gillespie, Quincy Jones, Stanley Clarke as well as some of the jamband scene (Phil Lesh and Friends, etc.).

I can't argue with "I don't like his playing" as a matter of personal taste, but even if you don't you'd have to be narrow minded to not respect his uniqueness, creativity and technique.

[GuyBoden]

Stanley is an amazing musician who is not staying in the bebop lines, to be sure, but is more creative than most jazz guitarists. And he can play ferocious bebopish jazz, too. I've seen him twice in the past year and each show was fascinating.

The first was a solo gig, part of which included interacting with Ableton Live (I think) managed with two laptops and foot controls- his first show with that setup and hard to describe, but very intriguing. He was able to improvise a background to interact with and to improvise with on guitar. The second was a couple of weeks ago, a duo gig with Mimi Fox, which was stellar. Very different styles and yet they found a powerful common ground.

I attended a four hour seminar with Stanley the next day, which was fascinating. His focus was on learning rather than specifically about guitar technique, etc. Stanley has a degree in music theory from Princeton, a Master's in music therapy (and authored a very interesting article about neurolinguistic programming in music therapy). He's played with Benny Carter, Dizzy Gillespie, Quincy Jones, Stanley Clarke as well as some of the jamband scene (Phil Lesh and Friends, etc.).

I can't argue with "I don't like his playing" as a matter of personal taste, but even if you don't you'd have to be narrow minded to not respect his uniqueness, creativity and technique.

Totally agree with your statement: "you'd have to be narrow minded to not respect his uniqueness, creativity and technique."

[oldane]

To me, jazz is not about cramming the highest number of notes into a bar or playing furiously fast (though having the technique to do it is always helpful). Thus, Stanley Jordan have never spoken as much to me as say Wes Montgomery, Jimmy Raney or Tal Farlow. To me jazz is more about being "in the pocket", may that be with many or few notes, fast or slow - about placing the notes you do play just right rhythmically and being "locked in" with the other musicians.

One who has always struck me as being very much "in the pocket" is Count Basie, who usually played few notes, and he often played the same licks. But what he played was so much "in the pocket". Here's an example, I personally love. It's "I needs to be bee'd with" by Quincy Jones - but basically it just a 12 bar blues played as a piano/bass duet with a great groove:

Wes could also say a lot with a few notes. Here a very beautiful version of "Old Folks":

[Bob_Ross]

To me, jazz is not about cramming the highest number of notes into a bar or playing furiously fast (though having the technique to do it is always helpful). Thus, Stanley Jordan have never spoken as much to me as say Wes Montgomery, Jimmy Raney or Tal Farlow.

Ironic! As I mentioned in a recent thread on Tal Farlow, I'd never been impressed with Farlow's playing because everything I'd heard him do sounded like he was "cramming the highest number of notes into a bar or playing furiously fast"! (Fourtunately for me, others in that thread pointed me towards Farlow's much earlier works, where his musicality -- and restraint -- shined. Apparently I'd only heard his later recordings prior to that.)

It's funny, when I listen to Stanley Jordan -- which admittedly is infrequently -- I don't hear him conspicuously shredding...i.e., he doesn't sound to me like someone playing inordinately fast. But he does sound like someone tapping, and the sound of that technique coerces every opinion of his playing that I can muster.

[Dennis D]

Totally agree with your statement: "you'd have to be narrow minded to not respect his uniqueness, creativity and technique."

Sorry if I missed a previous mention - - but was anyone else reminded of a Chapman Stick, after hearing SJ ?

[Bob_Ross]

Sorry if I missed a previous mention - - but was anyone else reminded of a Chapman Stick, after hearing SJ ?

See my comment in post #63, above: "My only criticism of Stanley Jordan is the exact same criticism I have of every single Chapman Stick player I've ever heard who uses the treble half of that instrument: The limited articulations and lack of any timbral "thickness" or resonance makes everything played sound character-less."